[AlphaOne]

Ok ok i see the pont but that still doesnt invalidate the arguement regarding a dedicated blockade platform something that has the power of a mjolnir and still be quite mobile.

This is in mi opinion one of the more adequate measures that the GTVA has to take in order to mount a credible node blocade. Especialy sisnce the shivans have the juggs.

[aldo_14]

Ok ok i see the pont but that still doesnt invalidate the arguement regarding a dedicated blockade platform something that has the power of a mjolnir and still be quite mobile.

This is in mi opinion one of the more adequate measures that the GTVA has to take in order to mount a credible node blocade. Especialy sisnce the shivans have the juggs.

What, you mean like adding engines to a Mjolnir.  (why?  It'd never be able to move quickly enough to reposition tactically)

[AlphaOne]

then add really big engines i mean what the hell they can move a 3 km behemonts along at 20 or 30 ms ps and they cant move a beam cannon??But the again putting engines on them mai not be the best solution but rather a dedicated platform or something like that with massive thrusters and a good engine if posible make it a vasudan one cuz they sure are better at building reactors and engines the the terrans. Also it doesnt have to turn on a dime but have the manouverabilaty of a cruise a fenris for example or something like that.

Enough fo it to reposition its firing solution as to target the ships exiting more eficently.

This would graetely help with the blocade.

[aldo_14]

then add really big engines i mean what the hell they can move a 3 km behemonts along at 20 or 30 ms ps and they cant move a beam cannon??But the again putting engines on them mai not be the best solution but rather a dedicated platform or something like that with massive thrusters and a good engine if posible make it a vasudan one cuz they sure are better at building reactors and engines the the terrans. Also it doesnt have to turn on a dime but have the manouverabilaty of a cruise a fenris for example or something like that.

Firstly, a cruiser isn't maneuverable enough for that type of defense; a cruiser has the advantage of multiple weapons to bring to bear, so it can turn slowly whilst still having some form of offensive capabilitity whilst it is brining the main weapons to bear.  An RBC has a single-straight-forward beam, and if it can't fire more or less immediately then the enemy can quickly escape.  How useful is fighter with the maneuverability of a cruiser?  Not very - and an RBC is the same fixed-fire principle.

In terms of engines; let's not forget that capital ships probably have huge reactors.  Given that the Mjolnir is about 100m long, it entails that the reactor for it's single-but-powerful beam weapon is similarly huge.  now, you can add new engines, but bear in mind the consequences - it'd be a much larger target, it'd be a lot more expensive, there'd arguably be more splash damage when it goes down due to the larger reactor, and you'd have probably constraints upon the design due to stresses of movement when it shifts.

Given that these weapons are essentially disposable, there's not all that much point in replacing them with what is not all that different to a Helios-armed bomber or a small cruiser.  I suspect that because the RBC beam is so powerful, you think that it's easy to replicate and shove on some form of large structure.  But that beam is also the result of a purpose-built shell the size of a freighter, dedicated to that purpose (I'd bet it also has huge heat sinks so it can fire frequently, too, which would be an additional problem as part of a larger structure ala the Colossus).  If it were easy to integrate that form of weaponry in a meaningful, aimable manner on a ship, you'd be seeing them on the likes of the Colossus.

Enough fo it to reposition its firing solution as to target the ships exiting more eficently.

This would graetely help with the blocade.

Actually, any time requirement to turn screws up the blockade.  Anything beyond fighter-level maneuverability will find itself out-turned and exposed if it's not in a correct firing position initially.  Given that the first ships through a blockade would expect to carry or be escorted by fighter cover, you can't assume you'd have time to reposition RBCs for the next wave before they can under attack; which is why i'd imagine they'd not be cost effective.

[AlphaOne]

WEll then there is only one solution build them in numbers. I mean huge numbers. Like 100 or so even more if posible since theyre that cheap that they area viewed as disposable.

Stick them all where you need them and there you have it  a blocade which no jugg can pass.

Also is there a way to move them aroud with a freighter or something like that?? i mean toe them fast from one sistem to the other.

[aldo_14]

WEll then there is only one solution build them in numbers. I mean huge numbers. Like 100 or so even more if posible since theyre that cheap that they area viewed as disposable.

Be realistic here - cheap and disposable does not equal free, it means they cost less and are easier to make than a comparable, crewed vessel of similar capabilities.   It's financial and resource constraints that make RBCs useful; it's the same constraints that prevent overloading of nodes with them, same as you can't blockade with 30 or 40 cruisers at each node.

 In any sensible blockade, RBCs would be merely part of a staged defense involving fighter and bomber cover, fleet vessels, and perhaps even the lowly sentry gun.  RBCs are more effective and efficient than a cruiser or destroyer at close-ish range in a blockade, so they go in close and positioned as an initial defence.  Bombers, with fighter cover, form the 2nd line.  Destroyers and beam-armed warships form the final lines, including perhaps reserve forces well-back from the blockade which interdict escapees.

Stick them all where you need them and there you have it  a blocade which no jugg can pass.

Also is there a way to move them aroud with a freighter or something like that?? i mean toe them fast from one sistem to the other.

Almost certainly they can be picked up by transports and moved, but it's unlikely to be any faster than normal fleet travel would be.

[TrashMan]

I tend to disagree....

Since with node blockades you KNOW where the enemy will come from your beam cannon willl not have to move much. Given the re-charge times of beam cannons, cruiser type mauverability is more than enough.

RBC's aren't cheap. If they were we would be seeing many more of them. Giving them the abiltiy to turn around and jump out means you can save them and re-use them. It's efficent from any point of view, as you can mount a even stronger a defense at the next node.

And techincly, hte GTVA could hold a blocake quite well with the tech it has.. Put several RBC'ss, Orions and Hatephsuts around the node and I guarnatee that no Sathanas will make it trough. A jump node is a tight spot where only one destroyer/jugg can pass trough at once.

[aldo_14]

I tend to disagree....

Since with node blockades you KNOW where the enemy will come from your beam cannon willl not have to move much. Given the re-charge times of beam cannons, cruiser type mauverability is more than enough.

Firstly, we don't know where the enemy will come from.  There's no conclusive evidence that the exit vector from subspace is fixed.  Secondly, the beam cannons need to manuever, fire, and inflict disabling damage in the time period before an attacking ship can jump out.  That's not a long time; not to mention that an attacking destroyer (or fighter-carrying carrier) will be able to deploy fighters as cover (whilst a sensible blockade will have protective fighter cover of its own, it's best to make sure the Mjolnirs have a good chance of hitting). 

Note, again, Mjolnirs are not perfect in this regard.  But they are, most likely (due to the fact they were developed) cheap and effective for their cost-loss ratio.  It's probably a LOT cheaper to position a reasonable number of Mjolnirs in a good 360 firing arc round a node, than to have the same coverage via capital ships.  This does not abdicate other ship types from a role in a blockade, of course.

RBC's aren't cheap. If they were we would be seeing many more of them. Giving them the abiltiy to turn around and jump out means you can save them and re-use them. It's efficent from any point of view, as you can mount a even stronger a defense at the next node.

Actually, we don't see many because they are developed fairly late on in the campaign and marked as experimental.  After that point in the game you don't see many blockades, period.

And techincly, hte GTVA could hold a blocake quite well with the tech it has.. Put several RBC'ss, Orions and Hatephsuts around the node and I guarnatee that no Sathanas will make it trough. A jump node is a tight spot where only one destroyer/jugg can pass trough at once.

The GTVA tried that in Capella.  The Sathanas decimated them;

[A small task force will oversee the demolition of the Knossos while the bulk of the allied fleet blockades the jump node leading to the densely-populated Capella system. Command has begun the process of evacuating the two hundred fifty million civilians inhabiting Capella, the largest exodus since the Great War. The Colossus will remain in that system to engage the Sathanas should we fail.

The Sathanas decimated our fleet at the Capella node. Your bomber wing will be scrambled to destroy the Juggernaut's forward beam turrets before it reaches Capella. You must destroy at least two turrets to give the Colossus a fighting chance. You will be armed with the new long-range Trebuchet missile and the Helios torpedo, the GTVA's most powerful tactical warhead.

Either the bulk of the GTVA fleet is smaller than several RBCs and multiple destroyers (meaning that strategy would be unfeasibly resource-intensive with the risk of Shivan attacks from other unstable nodes), or it was that size and simply annihilated by the superior vessel.  If the storyline of FS2 shows one thing about blockades, it's that they are frequently broken.   Also, there's a potential issue that beam cannons overheat with continuous fire on a capship, i.e. the Colossus.  I'd imagine Mjolnirs would be designed from scratch to avoid this.

Whilst I would agree RBCs with fighter cover and warship (but not primarily destroyers; you need to keep them at a safe distance or you risk losing your entire fighter and bomber cover) cover in the perimeter, you can't hold out against a vastly superior force under any prolonged circumstance.

[Nuclear1]

Stick them all where you need them and there you have it  a blocade which no jugg can pass.

Not true. If they're packed together at the node, then all it would take is a few lucky Cyclops bombs to cripple the line. If they're too spread apart, then the fighter cover won't reach them fast enough.

[NGTM-1R]

The Sathanas decimated our fleet at the Capella node. Your bomber wing will be scrambled to destroy the Juggernaut's forward beam turrets before it reaches Capella. You must destroy at least two turrets to give the Colossus a fighting chance. You will be armed with the new long-range Trebuchet missile and the Helios torpedo, the GTVA's most powerful tactical warhead.

Either the bulk of the GTVA fleet is smaller than several RBCs and multiple destroyers (meaning that strategy would be unfeasibly resource-intensive with the risk of Shivan attacks from other unstable nodes), or it was that size and simply annihilated by the superior vessel.  If the storyline of FS2 shows one thing about blockades, it's that they are frequently broken.   Also, there's a potential issue that beam cannons overheat with continuous fire on a capship, i.e. the Colossus.  I'd imagine Mjolnirs would be designed from scratch to avoid this.

I have a theory on this actually; it relates to the rather unimpressive amount of fighters the Sathanas launched in High Noon. Specifically that the Sathanas did not on its own do most of the decimating. Rather it launched, and lost, most of its fighters to engage the GTVA fleet at the node, and the fighters did most of the damage while the Sathanas just cruised on.

[aldo_14]

I have a theory on this actually; it relates to the rather unimpressive amount of fighters the Sathanas launched in High Noon. Specifically that the Sathanas did not on its own do most of the decimating. Rather it launched, and lost, most of its fighters to engage the GTVA fleet at the node, and the fighters did most of the damage while the Sathanas just cruised on.

That'd make sense, yeah, although there'd likely be equally many GTVA fighters covering the blockade as launched.  I'd imagine the ability of the Sath to incenerate just about anything in front of it would be the key, though; it could probably destroy the fighter-carrying destroyers sharpish.

[AlphaOne]

Well yeah it would sugest that it was in fact a great fighter/bommber engagement and since thy didnt have alpha1 there...!

But still how many destroyers were scrambled there and how mani fighters from other sistems??

You would imagine them sending most of theyr forces!

[TrashMan]

Firstly, we don't know where the enemy will come from.  There's no conclusive evidence that the exit vector from subspace is fixed.  Secondly, the beam cannons need to manuever, fire, and inflict disabling damage in the time period before an attacking ship can jump out.  That's not a long time; not to mention that an attacking destroyer (or fighter-carrying carrier) will be able to deploy fighters as cover (whilst a sensible blockade will have protective fighter cover of its own, it's best to make sure the Mjolnirs have a good chance of hitting). 

Note, again, Mjolnirs are not perfect in this regard.  But they are, most likely (due to the fact they were developed) cheap and effective for their cost-loss ratio.  It's probably a LOT cheaper to position a reasonable number of Mjolnirs in a good 360 firing arc round a node, than to have the same coverage via capital ships.  This does not abdicate other ship types from a role in a blockade, of course.

From what I've seen everything suggest the exit vector is more or less fixed (or very limited).
And I'm talking about a Mljonir with a engine, not the slap Mljonirs on a destroyer idea (not practical really)

The GTVA tried that in Capella.  The Sathanas decimated them;

The FRED tells a diffent story. Normally, a blockade would pawn hte Sath....Of course in the game it decimated them. It *HAD* to decimate them for hte player to save they day. Chuck the logic and balance out of the window....

[Mars]

I made slow turning Mjolnirs, the GTVA should try it. Four of them can completely destroy a Hecate within 30 seconds of it's jumping in (small problem though, which I mentioned in this post)

[S-99]

Why can't the sathanas do something worth its fighter bay in size (and unique). like launching liliths and cains

[Mars]

I don't think that've done much good, except in Bearbaiting. Colossus would've vaporized them in short order (maybe not the Liliths, but definitely the Cains)

[S-99]

Think of deploying liliths and cains along with fighters
Serioulsy though, the sathanas is huge as ****, so is the colossus, it's probably going to be a factory for fighters and stuff.
If the sathanas was also manufacturing liliths and cains, that'd also give the limited use of the sathanas more of a role. It'd make sense to for it's size and fighterbay size. The sathanas so far has forward beam cannons, doesn't deploy many fighters, and has subspace abilities. Something tells me since it's not very offensive, it's either a support role, or used by the shivans for it's subspace manipulation and technology. Besides any type of role, the sathanas is really a dumb**** lumbering giant if you're not in front of it.

[AlphaOne]

WEll you could say that except that one of these lumbering giants just one of them managed to anihalate more then half of the GTVA forces involved in the war in just a couple of what?..weeks??

So yeah this is something neither the NTF not convencional shivan forces managed to do!

[S-99]

True, but i'm also saying, get behind that sath, i mean, once you're out of the way of those forward beams, you might as well call it all good. That's why i was thinking the sath was perhaps a different type of vessel specialized for something, i mean, a more imposing vessel than the sath would be the ravana, the ravana has a lot more cover all around it.

[aldo_14]

From what I've seen everything suggest the exit vector is more or less fixed (or very limited).
And I'm talking about a Mljonir with a engine, not the slap Mljonirs on a destroyer idea (not practical really)

Well, you still have technical issues with that approach, particularly cost and structure.  Even if we have viable engines (able to turn quickly), adding them raises the cost and complexity of the RBC.  And then it is getting expensive, so you end up considering how to protect them, so maybe slap in a jumpdrive....and eventually you end up with more or less a single turreted cruiser, and need a new and cheap RBC solution.

The FRED tells a diffent story. Normally, a blockade would pawn hte Sath....Of course in the game it decimated them. It *HAD* to decimate them for hte player to save they day. Chuck the logic and balance out of the window....

Yes, well you can FRED a Fenris destroying a Sath - it doesn't necessarily make it the likely result.  Storyline trumps gameplay all the time; otherwise how else would the player be able to enjoy fighting in a losing war?